6 ms·

> the market has spoken. And it's happy. When has the market been given a choice? App Stores have been the only way to get software on iPhones since they were

> the market has spoken. And it's happy. When has the market been given a choice? App Stores have been the only way to get software on iPhones since they were first released. I can't even install an alternative OS on my iPhone, and jailbreaking seems to have become less accessible now too. How do we know what experience is more competitive if competition isn't allowed to blossom? Maybe the market would value an alternative App Store that is able to compete on moderation and/or the 30% developer tax status quo? > If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-guarded, highly-moderated mobile OS to choose from. If the market wants this kind of experience, then surely it will continue to exist no?

WillPostForFood 6y ago
When has the market been given a choice? The choice now is between Apple and Android ecosystems. The best Android phones have comparable hardware to the iPhone, so people are choosing based on software, price, and status.
- komali2 6y ago
  Why not force Apple to behave ethically, on top of it? Give the people even more choice! Clearly there are strong arguments for the iphone if people are willing to give up software freedom to own one. As an Android user I'd love to hop over and find out what the buzz is about. But of course, I can't justify buying a computer that I can't even install software of my choice on. This is a great place for regulatory intervention to act for the good of the people. I don't really care about the good of Apple. It is the world's most highly valued company, right? It'll be fine.
  - llukas 6y ago
    Why do you want all ecosystems to conform to your beliefs and implement your vision of how choice need to be made? Librem 5 or Pinephone is a thing as well.
    - komali2 6y ago
      Because my beliefs are more ethical than Apple's current implementation.
      - komali2 6y ago
        Lol, I guess I was wrong to assume this was obvious? Like, I could be the most baseline "all I want to do is stay at home and eat ice cream and watch TV and not hurt anyone" and my ethics are already better than Apple, who contributes negatively to climate change and participates in industry practices that lead to people throwing themselves off the roof of factories in China. That's before we get to their opposition to Right to Repair or their fights against the Free Software movement. If you're gonna downvote me, I mean... I really feel like the burden is on someone to demonstrate how Apple is somehow more ethical, rather than on me to demonstrate how I'm more ethical than apple lmao
- gerash 6y ago
  Switching phones OS is not a smooth experience where you click a button. Your app configs, purchased media, etc. won't transfer easily if at all.
  - xondono 6y ago
    It's not infinitely costly anyway. If this is keeping people from switching, then the costs are infinitessimal. Samsung has great importers for you to switch platforms.
paulmd 6y ago
> If the market wants this kind of experience, then surely it will continue to exist no? That is the battle Epic is currently fighting, to remove the ability for anyone on the market to offer this option. By requiring everyone to allow third-party app stores, you effectively remove the option for a fully curated experience. Because as mentioned, once a few popular apps start demanding usage of the third-party app store, consumers will no longer be able to choose a fully-curated experience without foregoing those services. And that will lead down an inevitable loss of privacy, increased demanding of permissions for marketing, etc - all of which Apple has fairly successfully fought back solely through their centrally-moderated experience. We all lived through the early days of Android before the built-in flashlight when you had flashlight apps demanding full permissions to monitor everything you do. It is, in a sense, another "paradox of tolerance" - you have to restrict user freedoms in one area (what users are allowed to install) to protect them in another area (predatory developers). Apple's walled garden is the only thing keeping those marketing departments at bay, their restrictions on app-developer (and ultimately end-user) freedom are what protects your privacy. Similar perhaps to how GNU and BSD regard "freedoms" differently - BSD regards developer freedom as paramount, while GNU regards user freedom as paramount, and these are not quite the same things. While BSD protects developer freedom to release proprietary code on top of BSD code, GNU restricts developer freedom and forces that to be released under GNU license as well. And ultimately that translates into a loss of user freedom in some sense - surely users would like the ability to have ZFS distributed alongside the Linux kernel, but GNU restricts that freedom in furtherance of the big-picture. Ironic as it is, the Apple Store is the GNU of this situation. They are willing to burn some specific cases of application developers who are not willing to accept the licensing terms, in order to protect the big-picture of user freedoms (privacy). Android is the "BSD", where they are more concerned about developer freedom than user freedom. And the loss of specific apps is analogous to the friction between mixing source under copyleft license with other open-source licenses. If you want third-party app stores, Android exists. This is about Epic fighting to take away the option to have a moderated, quality-controlled experience and eroding the ability of users to maintain their privacy.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  > Ironic as it is, the Apple Store is the GNU of this situation. I've read a lot of mind-boggling post-hoc rationalisation of Apple's anti-competitive and paternalistic behaviour, but this definitely takes the cake.
kmlx 6y ago
> When has the market been given a choice? Android.

WillPostForFood 6y ago

When has the market been given a choice? The choice now is between Apple and Android ecosystems. The best Android phones have comparable hardware to the iPhone, so people are choosing based on software, price, and status.

komali2 6y ago
Why not force Apple to behave ethically, on top of it? Give the people even more choice! Clearly there are strong arguments for the iphone if people are willing to give up software freedom to own one. As an Android user I'd love to hop over and find out what the buzz is about. But of course, I can't justify buying a computer that I can't even install software of my choice on. This is a great place for regulatory intervention to act for the good of the people. I don't really care about the good of Apple. It is the world's most highly valued company, right? It'll be fine.
- llukas 6y ago
  Why do you want all ecosystems to conform to your beliefs and implement your vision of how choice need to be made? Librem 5 or Pinephone is a thing as well.
  - komali2 6y ago
    Because my beliefs are more ethical than Apple's current implementation.
    - komali2 6y ago
      Lol, I guess I was wrong to assume this was obvious? Like, I could be the most baseline "all I want to do is stay at home and eat ice cream and watch TV and not hurt anyone" and my ethics are already better than Apple, who contributes negatively to climate change and participates in industry practices that lead to people throwing themselves off the roof of factories in China. That's before we get to their opposition to Right to Repair or their fights against the Free Software movement. If you're gonna downvote me, I mean... I really feel like the burden is on someone to demonstrate how Apple is somehow more ethical, rather than on me to demonstrate how I'm more ethical than apple lmao
gerash 6y ago
Switching phones OS is not a smooth experience where you click a button. Your app configs, purchased media, etc. won't transfer easily if at all.
- xondono 6y ago
  It's not infinitely costly anyway. If this is keeping people from switching, then the costs are infinitessimal. Samsung has great importers for you to switch platforms.

paulmd 6y ago

> If the market wants this kind of experience, then surely it will continue to exist no? That is the battle Epic is currently fighting, to remove the ability for anyone on the market to offer this option. By requiring everyone to allow third-party app stores, you effectively remove the option for a fully curated experience. Because as mentioned, once a few popular apps start demanding usage of the third-party app store, consumers will no longer be able to choose a fully-curated experience without foregoing those services. And that will lead down an inevitable loss of privacy, increased demanding of permissions for marketing, etc - all of which Apple has fairly successfully fought back solely through their centrally-moderated experience. We all lived through the early days of Android before the built-in flashlight when you had flashlight apps demanding full permissions to monitor everything you do. It is, in a sense, another "paradox of tolerance" - you have to restrict user freedoms in one area (what users are allowed to install) to protect them in another area (predatory developers). Apple's walled garden is the only thing keeping those marketing departments at bay, their restrictions on app-developer (and ultimately end-user) freedom are what protects your privacy. Similar perhaps to how GNU and BSD regard "freedoms" differently - BSD regards developer freedom as paramount, while GNU regards user freedom as paramount, and these are not quite the same things. While BSD protects developer freedom to release proprietary code on top of BSD code, GNU restricts developer freedom and forces that to be released under GNU license as well. And ultimately that translates into a loss of user freedom in some sense - surely users would like the ability to have ZFS distributed alongside the Linux kernel, but GNU restricts that freedom in furtherance of the big-picture. Ironic as it is, the Apple Store is the GNU of this situation. They are willing to burn some specific cases of application developers who are not willing to accept the licensing terms, in order to protect the big-picture of user freedoms (privacy). Android is the "BSD", where they are more concerned about developer freedom than user freedom. And the loss of specific apps is analogous to the friction between mixing source under copyleft license with other open-source licenses. If you want third-party app stores, Android exists. This is about Epic fighting to take away the option to have a moderated, quality-controlled experience and eroding the ability of users to maintain their privacy.

Tainnor 6y ago
> Ironic as it is, the Apple Store is the GNU of this situation. I've read a lot of mind-boggling post-hoc rationalisation of Apple's anti-competitive and paternalistic behaviour, but this definitely takes the cake.

kmlx 6y ago

> When has the market been given a choice? Android.